Renewable Energy 62 (2014) 204e208

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Technical note

Biogas production from rice husks generated from various rice mills in
Ebonyi State, Nigeria
Okeh C. Okeh a, c, Chukwudi O. Onwosi b, *, Frederick John C. Odibo a
a
Department of Applied Microbiology and Brewing, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, P.M.B. 5025 Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria
b
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria
c
Ebonyi State Environmental Protection Agency, Work House, P.M.B. 068 Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, laboratory scale biogas production from rice husks (RH) generated from different
Received 21 September 2012 rice mills was investigated using cow rumen fluid as a source of inoculum. The effects of various pa-
Accepted 5 July 2013 rameters such as water dilution, initial pH, heavy metals and nitrogen sources on digester performance
Available online
were evaluated. Feedstock to water dilution ratio of 1:6 w/v and initial pH 7 gave the maximum biogas
yield of 382 and 357 mL/day, respectively. Addition of heavy metals (Ni2þ, Zn2þ, and Cu2þ) enhanced
Keywords:
digester performance with Ni2þ (100 ppm) giving the best biogas yield. The maximum values of biogas
Anaerobic digestion
production rate were 30 and 69 mL/day for the control and poultry droppings, respectively, after two
Biogas production
Heavy metal
days while urea gave 8 mL/day on day four. The use of poultry droppings (PD) as nitrogen supplements
Rice husk encouraged biogas generation. Therefore, rice husks offer an alternative source of energy to agricultural
Poultry dropping farmers.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In today’s energy demanding life style, there is a need for
exploring and exploiting new sources of energy that are renewable,
as well as, eco-friendly. The renewable energy resource systems
such as solar, wind, hydro wave, geothermal and biomass,
offer attractive prospects because they are unlimited and cheap [1].
Biomass, which is made up of a wide variety of agricultural resi-
dues, is found in large quantity and it is the major contributor to
renewable energy (occupying approximately about 10% of the total
energy) [2]. It is considered as a worldwide valuable energy alter-
native to fossil fuels, because it may be converted to a variety of
usable forms of energy such as biogas, and liquid transportation
biofuels [3]. In developing countries, large quantities of cellulosic
biomass such as rice husks and other forms of agricultural residues
(straws, nut shells, fruit shells, fruit seeds, plant stovers, green
leaves, and molasses) are produced annually but are vastly under-
utilized [4]. Thus, agricultural biomass abounds in the rural and
sub-urban areas and contributes to major environmental pollution
[5]. In Nigeria alone, it has been estimated that about 227,500 tons
of fresh animal wastes is produced daily. Since 1 kg of fresh animal
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ234 8034920577.
E-mail address: chukwudi.onwosi@unn.edu.ng (C.O. Onwosi).
wastes produces about 0.03 m3 gas, then Nigeria can produce
6.8 million m3 of biogas every day. In addition to these, 20 kg of
municipal solid waste per capita has been estimated to be gener-
ated in the country annually [6]. With increasing urbanization and
industrialization, the annual municipal solid waste generated will
continue to increase [7]. Therefore, developing biomass-to-biofuel
technology could be significantly beneficial for enhancing energy
security, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and utilizing the
renewable resources [8]. However, developing cost effective ap-
proaches for biomass-to-biofuel production is still identified as the
key bottleneck preventing its widespread commercialization [9].
Anaerobic digestion (AD) of agricultural residues and other biode-
gradable wastes is widely used as the best treatment options
because it yields methane and CO2 rich biogas which is suitable for
energy production [10,11]. Anaerobic digestion of organic waste
and residues, therefore, combines both sustainable treatment and
renewable energy production [12,13]. The by-product, or nutrient-
rich digestate, from the AD process can be used as a fertilizer for
agriculture.
In the urban and rural areas of Ebonyi State, Nigeria, local milling
of rice is a common practice. Generally, rice producers processing
1 ton of rice generate 240 kg of husks [14]. Consequently, rice husk
constitutes one of the major environmental nuisances as they form
the major municipal solid waste heaps in the areas where they are
disposed. Although, rice husk has various applications such as in

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.006
 O.C. Okeh et al. / Renewable Energy 62 (2014) 204e208
construction materials [15], for the adsorbent of heavy metals [16],
and in the design of gas furnace as an alternative to coal [17] or
alongside pulverized coal which is conducive to gas phase com-
bustion [18], it has not yet become a practical option to use for
energy in Nigeria. Most of rice husks generated during rice milling
are burnt in the field. This kind of traditional disposal method has
caused widespread environmental concerns since it causes air
pollution. As a result of the health and environmental concerns,
many countries have imposed new regulations to restrict field
burning activities [19]. Subsequently, methods to dispose and to use
agricultural residues such as rice straw and rice husk have shifted
towards the global “waste to resource” agenda [20].
Therefore, the aims of this present study were to investigate the
use of rice husk (RH) in production of biogas using anaerobic di-
gestion and to optimize the process conditions (such as water dilu-
tion, initial pH, trace elements and nitrogen source) for enhanced
biogas production.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Digester feed
A batch sample of rice husk was used throughout the main se-
ries of experiments to provide a standard material for digestion.
Rice husks were collected from four different rice mills, namely:
Ikwo, Onueke, Ezillo and Abakaliki Rice Mills in Ebonyi State,
Nigeria. These samples were sun-dried and stored in a stoppered
polyethylene container and used as a digester feed when required.
The inoculum used for the stabilization of wastes was collected
from the cow rumen of slaughtered cows in an abattoir in Abakaliki,
Ebonyi State. It was strained in cheesecloth and stored in an air-
tight container, in order to keep the microorganisms in an anaer-
obic environment. Anaerobic condition was maintained during the
anaerobic digestion by sealing the mouth of the digesters.
2.2. Anaerobic digestion experiment
The experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1. It consisted of 1 L
bottle which functioned as the anaerobic digester, burette as the
biogas collector, and container as the receiver for the water dis-
charged from the collector. The biogas generated in the digester
Fig. 1. Biogas digesters used in the anaerobic digestion of rice husk.
205
was transported by a rubber pipe into the inverted burette filled
with acidified water. The anaerobic digestion was carried out at
room temperature (30  1  C). Each digester was manually mixed
once a day to avoid stratification. The daily biogas production for
each anaerobic digester was recorded using the water displacement
method [21], and the corresponding cumulative biogas volume was
calculated.
2.3. Influence of water volume on digestion
To determine the influence of water volume on biogas production
in digesters, 50 g of feeds (rice husks from the four different rice
mills) were placed in sixteen different IL conical flasks (i.e. each
sample in quadruplicate). The rice husk in the different digester
flasks was moistened with varying volumes (200e500 mL) of water
to give feedstock/water ratio of 1:4, 1:6, 1:8 and 1:10 (w/v), respec-
tively. The digester without water served as a control. To initiate
fermentation, 50 mL of the inoculum was added and the sides of the
rubber bungs on the flask neck were sealed with candle wax to create
anaerobic condition. Fermentation was carried out at room temper-
ature (30  C) for hydraulic retention time of 28 days.
2.4. Effect of initial pH on digestion
In order to determine the effect of initial pH on biogas genera-
tion rate, the digesters containing the feedstock (RH) were buffered
with buffer solutions: citrate buffer of pH 4, phosphate buffer of pH
7 and boric acid e borax buffer of pH 10. Digestion was initiated in
each case by addition of 50 mL cow rumen inoculum.
2.5. Effect of heavy metals on digestion
The effects of some selected trace elements on biogas produc-
tion were evaluated by adding varying concentrations (50e
200 ppm) of ZnSO4, CuSO4 and NiCl2 to digesters containing 50 g of
rice husk. 200 mL of these solutions were added to the digesters
while the same volume of ordinary water was added to the control
digester. Digesters were then inoculated with 50 mL of cow rumen
liquor to initiate fermentation.
2.6. Effect of nitrogen sources on biogas production
To evaluate the effect of nitrogen sources on digester perfor-
mance, conical flasks containing 100 g of feedstock were mixed
with different quantities of poultry droppings or urea fertilizer as
indicated below. Digester containing 100 g of RH without poultry
droppings or urea served as a control. Using different digesters,
100 g of RH was mixed with 25 g of poultry droppings or urea to
give feed to poultry droppings/urea ratios of 4:1 (w/w). To initiate
fermentation, each of the flasks was inoculated with 50 mL of
freshly strained cow rumen liquor and 300 mL of water was added.
Incubation was done at 30  C for hydraulic retention time (HRT) of
28 days.
2.7. Data analyses
Each set of data in the experiments conducted was collected in
three replicates and the analytical result was the mean of at least
three measurements. The standard deviations (error bars) and
statistical differences (5% level of significance) were analyzed by
using GraphPad Prism 5Ò software (Trial version) (GraphPad Soft-
ware, CA, USA).
206 O.C. Okeh et al. / Renewable Energy 62 (2014) 204e208

500 Table 1
Effect of pH on biogas production.
Cumulative biogas yield (mL/day)

Digester feedstock (Initial) pH Effect on References

400 382
362 biogas
yield
a
300 Cow dung 7.0 þ [25]
242 Swine manure þ animal 6.4e7.6 þ [26]
waste water
200 Farm residue <7.0 þ [27]
MSW þ domestic sewage 6.5e7.3 þ [28]
Waste activated sludge 6.7 þ [29]
100 77 Barley waste þ kitchen 7.0e7.2 þ [30]
waste þ sewage sludge
12 Livestock waste 6.9e7.9 þ [31]
0 Corn stalk þ vermicompost 7.1e7.47 þ [21]
control 1:4 1:6 1:8 1:10 Rice husk 7.0 þ This study
a
Feed to water dilution ratio Increased biogas yield.

Fig. 2. Digester performance at varying feed to water dilution ratios.

digestion. A typical pH is in the range of 6.5e7.6 [24]. The accu-
mulation of intermediate acids leads to pH drop during fermenta-
tion. In order to maintain stable operation, it is necessary to add
3. Results and discussion
bicarbonate or carbonate as an alkalinity buffer to neutralize vol-
atile fatty acids and carbon dioxide [24].
3.1. Influence of water dilution on biogas generation

The influence of water volume on cumulative biogas yield and

daily rate of biogas generation were shown in Figs. 2 and 3, 3.3. Effects of some selected heavy metals on biogas production
respectively. Feed to water ratio of 1:6 w/v gave the best cumulative
yields. Although, the four tested ratios all gave greater yields than Table 2 shows the comparison of the results from this work
the control digester that had no water. Peak biogas production rates with the reports from other authors. The anaerobic fermentation
recorded for feed to water dilutions ratios of 1:4, 1:6 and 1:8 w/v and microbial growth are dependent on the availability and/or
were 130,150 and 143 mL/day, respectively. Also, the yield of 4 mL/ optimal supply of nutrients [32]. Despite the importance of trace
day occurred at day 3 for control while 1:10 gave maximum yield of elements for process stability and the production of biogas, it is
50 mL/day at day 4, as shown in Fig. 3. Using brewer’s spent grains; very clear that there is still no formula for optimum composition
Onwosi [22] reported an improved biogas production at the dilu- [33]. Several studies have also shown that the addition of trace
tion of 1:4 w/v but biogas production decreased as the dilution elements can stimulate the biogas process and enable higher
increased to 1:10 w/v. Report by Fernando [23] showed that excess organic loadings (Table 2). In the present study, Ni2þ (100 ppm),
dilution does not encourage bacterial cluster formation, which is Zn2þ (150 ppm) and Cu2þ (50 ppm) gave 279, 114 and 117 mL/day
needed for excellent biogas production. of biogas, respectively. Comparison of biogas yield Niþ with
Zn2þand Cu2þ, showed that there was a significant difference in
their performance (P < 5%).
3.2. Effect of initial pH on biogas production

The result of effect of initial pH of digester on biogas production

3.4. Effects of different nitrogen sources on biogas production
in this study is shown in Table 1 pH 7 gave the best biogas yield.
This is in agreement with the reports of other authors as shown in
The influence of different nitrogen sources (urea and poultry
Table 1 pH is an important factor for keeping functional anaerobic
droppings) on cumulative biogas yield and on biogas production
rate is shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. From the results in Fig. 4,
the supplementation of the rice husk with urea reduced the biogas
200
yield when compared with the control while addition of poultry
180 droppings (PD) improved biogas production. The maximum values
160
of biogas production rate were 30 and 69 mL/day for the control
Biogas production rate (mL/day)

and poultry droppings, respectively, on day 2, while urea gave the

140
maximum biogas yield of 8 mL/day on day four (Fig. 5). The higher
120 biogas production rate from PD could be attributed to the fact that
100
control the poultry droppings contained some remnants of their uncon-
1:4 feed to water dilution sumed feed which made poultry droppings to have higher carbon
80 1:6 feed to water dilution content than the urea N. In biogas production, it is necessary to
60 1:8 feed to water dilution maintain a proper composition of the feedstock for efficient plant
40
1:10 feed to water dilution operation so that C:N ratio in feed remains within desired range.
Thus, to meet this requirement, microbes need a 25e30:1 ratio of C
20
to N with the largest percentage of the carbon being readily
0 degradable [45,46]. Vermeullen [47] reported that high concen-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time (days)
tration of N reduced the biogas production rate and this was
improved by the addition of paper, which contributed to increase in
Fig. 3. Biogas production rate at different feed to water dilution ratios. C/N ratio.
 O.C. Okeh et al. / Renewable Energy 62 (2014) 204e208 207

Table 2
Comparison of effects of trace elements on biogas production with the reports of other authors.

Digester feedstock Trace element (s) Concentration Effect on biogas Effect on methane Refs.
(ppm) yield content

Poultry excreta Ni2þ a

na b
þ d
0 [34]
Cow dung Ni2þ na þ þ [35]
Sewage sludge Ni2þ >1000 c
e na [36]
Rice husks Ni2þ 100 þ 0 This study
Napier grass Ni, Co, Mo, Se na þ na [37]
Mango processing residue Fe3þ 4 þ þ [38]
Water-hyacinth þ cow dung Fe3þ na þ þ [39]
Poultry litter or cow dung Fe2þ na þ þ [40]
Maize silage Co2þ 59e120 þ na [41]
Se 79e790 þ na [41]
Mo2þ 48 þ na [41]
Municipal solid waste Co, Cu, Fe, Mo, Ni, Se W, Zn na þ na [42]
Food industry waste Se 8e800 þ 0 [43]
W 18e1800 þ 0
Cow dung Cu2þ 1000 þ na [44]
Rice husks Cu2þ 150 þ 0 This study
Rice husks Zn2þ 50 þ 0 This study
a
Data not available.
b
þ Increase in biogas/methane yield.
c
Decrease in biogas/methane yield.
d
0 No effect on biogas/methane yield.

200 4. Conclusions
Cumulative biogas yield (mL/day)

159 Rice husks (RH) derived from various rice mills in southeast
Nigeria are promising feedstock for biogas production. This study
150
shows that when rice husks are digested anaerobically, flammable
biogas can be produced. We report that factors such as water
dilution, initial pH, heavy metals (Zn2þ, Ni2þ and Cu2þ), and
100 sources of nitrogen affected the digester performance. The best
feed to water dilution ratio was 1:6 w/v, which gave the biogas
62
yield of 382 mL/day. Excess water dilution discouraged bacterial
50 cluster formation and hence decrease in biogas production. The
30 best biogas yields of 357, 279 159 mL/day were reported for pH 7,
Ni2þ (100 ppm) and poultry droppings supplementation, respec-
tively. None of the parameters tested affected the methane content
0
of the biogas, although they improved the biogas yields. Thus, the
control poultry droppings urea
use of rice husks in biogas production is encouraged and can offer
Nitrogen source an alternative source of energy generation especially among the
rural farmers and dwellers. This is expected to provide opportu-
Fig. 4. Effect of nitrogen source on digester performance. nities for local rice millers to utilize these wastes which are
generally abandoned in dump sites. It will also bring about an
integrated system with reduced cost of operation and consequent
increased earnings while providing better aesthetics and healthier
environment.
80
Biogas production rate (mL/day)

70
Acknowledgments
60
We thank EBSEPA (Ebonyi State, Nigeria) provision of some fa-
50 cilities and Global Laboratories Ltd. for analysis of some samples
generated in this study.
40

30
Control References
20 Urea
Poultry droppings [1] Akinbami JFK, Ilori MO, Oyebisi TO, Akinwumi IO, Adeoti O. Biogas energy use
in Nigeria: current status, future prospects and policy implication. Renewable
10
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2001;5:97e112.
[2] Antizar-Ladislao B, Turrion-Gomez JL. Second-generation biofuels and
0 local bioenergy systems. Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining 2008;2(5):
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
455e69.
Time (days) [3] Converti A, Oliveira RPS, Torres BR, Lodi A, Zilli M. Biogas production and
valorization by means of a two-step biological process. Bioresource Technol-
Fig. 5. Effect of nitrogen source on rate of biogas production. ogy 2009;100(23):5771e6.
208 O.C. Okeh et al. / Renewable Energy 62 (2014) 204e208
[4] Demirbas A. Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for
fuels and chemicals. Energy Conversion and Management 2001;42:1357e78.
[5] Arvanitoyannis IS, Kassaveti A, Stefanatos S. Current and potential uses of
thermally treated olive oil waste. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology 2007;42(7):852e67.
[6] Matthew P. Gas production from animal wastes and its prospects in Nigeria.
Nigerian Journal of Solar Energy 1982;2:98e103.
[7] Akinbami JFK, Akinwumi IO, Salami AT. Implications of environmental
degradation in Nigeria. Natural Resources Forum 1996;20(4):319e31.
[8] Midilli A, Dincer I, Ay M. Green energy strategies for sustainable development.
Energy Policy 2006;34(18):3623e33.
[9] Li J, Hu R. Sustainable biomass production for energy in China. Biomass and
Bioenergy 2003;25(5):483e99.
[10] Fredriksson H, Baky A, Bernesson S, Nordberg A, Norén O, Hansson PA. Use of
on-farm produced biofuels on organic farms-Evaluation of energy balances
and environmental loads for three possible fuels. Agricultural Systems
2006;89(1):184e203.
[11] Plochl M, Heiermann M. Biogas farming in central and northern Europe: a
strategy for developing countries? Agricultural Engineering International: The
CIGR Ejournal 2006;8(8):1e5.
[12] Zhong W, Zhang Z, Luo Y, Sun S, Qiao W, Xiao M. Effect of biological pre-
treatments in enhancing corn straw biogas production. Bioresource Tech-
nology 2011;102:11177e82.
[13] Zhong W, Zhang Z, Qiao W, Fu P, Liu M. Comparison of chemical and biological
pretreatment of corn straw for biogas production by anaerobic digestion.
Renewable Energy 2011;36:1875e9.
[14] Hosseinnia A, Hashtroudi MS, Banifatemi M. Surfactant removal. Water and
Wastewater Asia 2007:52e5.
[15] Yang HS, Kim DJ, Kim HJ. Rice straw-wood particle composite for sound absorbing
wooden construction materials. Bioresource Technology 2003;86:117e21.
[16] Lakshmi UR, Srivastava VC, Mall ID, Lataye DH. Rice husk ash as an effective
adsorbent: evaluation of adsorptive characteristics for indigo carmine dye.
Journal of Environmental Management 2009;90:710e20.
[17] Jain AK, Goss JR. Determination of reactor scaling factors for throatless rice
husk gasifier. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000;18:249e56.
[18] Chen WH, Wu JS. An evaluation on rice husks and pulverized coal blends
using a drop tube furnace and a thermogravimetric analyzer for application to
a blast furnace. Energy 2009;34:1458e66.
[19] Mansaray KG, Ghaly AE, Al-Taweel AM, Hamdullahpur F, Ugursal VI. Air
gasification of rice husk in a dual distributor type fluidized bed gasifier.
Biomass and Bioenergy 1999;17:315e32.
[20] Lim JS, Manan ZA, Wan Alwi SR, Hashim H. A review on utilization of biomass
from rice industry as a source of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews 2012;16:3084e94.
[21] Chen G, Zheng Z, Yang S, Fang C, Zou X, Luo Y. Experimental co-digestion of
corn stalk and vermicompost to improve biogas production. Waste Manage-
ment 2010;30:1834e40.
[22] Onwosi, CO, Okereke, GU. Effects of water dilution and nutrient supplements
(wood ash, urea and poultry droppings) on biogas production from brewers
spent grains. In: Paper presented at: the 2nd international conference on
environmental, industrial and medical microbiology, BIOMICROWORLD 2007,
held in Seville, Spain; November 28th eDecember 1st, 2007.
[23] Fernando CEC. Factors which affect biogas production. Nigerian Journal of
Solar Energy 1985;4:150e4.
[24] Parkin G, Owen WF. Fundamentals of anaerobic digestion of wastewater
sludges. Journal of Environmental Engineering 1986;112(5):867e920.
[25] Sambo AS, Garba B, Danshehu BG. Effect of some operating parameters on
biogas production rate. Renewable Energy 1995;6(3):343e4.
[26] Lansing S, Botero R, Martin JF. Waste treatment and biogas quality in small-
scale agricultural digesters. Bioresource Technology 2008;99(13):5881e90.
[27] Parsons RA. On-farm biogas production. Ithaca, New York: Northeast Regional
agricultural Engineering Service; 2004.
[28] Elango D, Pulikesi M, Baskaralingam P, Ramamurthi V, Sivanesan S. Produc-
tion of biogas from municipal solid waste with domestic sewage. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 2007;14(1):301e4.
[29] Kim J, Park C, Kim TH, Lee M, Kim S, Kim SW, et al. Effects of various pre-
treatments for enhanced anaerobic digestion with activated sludge. Journal of
Bioscience and Bioengineering 2003;95(3):271e5.
[30] Neves L, Ribeiro R, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Enhancement of methane production
from barley waste. Biomass and Bioenergy 2006;30:599e603.
[31] Vedrenne F, Beline F, Dabert P, Bernet N. The effect of incubation conditions
on the laboratory measurement of the methane producing capacity of live-
stock wastes. Bioresource Technology 2008;99:146e55.
[32] Bryant MP. Microbial methane production e theoretical aspects. Journal of
Animal Science 1979;48:193e201.
[33] Demirel B, Scherer P. Trace element requirements of agricultural biogas di-
gesters during biological conversion of renewable biomass to methane.
Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35:992e8.
[34] Williams CM, Shih JCH, Spears JW. Effect of nickel on biological methane
generation from a laboratory poultry waste digester. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 1986;18:1608e10.
[35] Hassan D, Tandon SM. Response of a cattle dung methane fermentation to
nickel. Biological Wastes 1987;22:261e8.
[36] Ashley NV, Davies M, Hurst T. The effect of increased nickel ion concentrations
on microbial populations in the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Water
Research 1982;16:963e71.
[37] Wilkie A, Goto M, Bordeaux FM, Smith PH. Enhancement of anaerobic
methanogenesis from Napier grass by addition of micronutrients. Biomass
1986;11:135e46.
[38] Raju NR, Sumithra Devi S, Nand K. Influence of trace elements on biogas
production from mango processing waste in 1.5 m3 KVIC digesters. Biotech-
nology Letters 1991;13:461e4.
[39] Hinken L, Urban I, Haun E, Urban I, Weichgrebe D, Rosenwinkel KH. The
valuation of malnutrition in the mono-digestion of maize silage by batch tests.
Water Science and Technology 2008;58:1453e9.
[40] Patel VB, Patel AR, Patel MC, Madamwar DB. Effect of metals on anaerobic
digestion of water hyacinth cattle dung. Applied Biochemistry and Biotech-
nology 1993;43:45e50.
[41] Lebuhn M, Liu F, Heuwinkel H, Gronauer A. Biogas production from mono-
digestion of maize silage-long term process stability and requirements. Wa-
ter Science and Technology 2008;58:1645e51.
[42] Kayhanian M, Rich D. Pilot-scale high solids thermophilic anaerobic digestion
of municipal solid waste with an emphasis on nutrient requirements. Biomass
and Bioenergy 1995;8:433e44.
[43] Feng XM, Karlsson A, Svensson BH, Bertilsson S. Impact of trace metal addition
on biogas production from food industrial waste-linking process to microbial
communities. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 2010;74:226e40.
[44] Singh S, Singh SK. Effect of cupric nitrate on acceleration of biogas production.
Energy Conversion and Management 1996;37(4):417e9.
[45] Bardiya N, Gaur AC. Effects of carbon and nitrogen ratio on rice straw bio-
methanation. Journal of Rural Energy 1997;4(14):1e16.
[46] Malik RK, Singh R, Tauro P. Effect of inorganic supplementation on biogas
production. Biological Wastes 1987;21(2):139e42.
[47] Vermeullen J, Huysmans A, Crespo M, Van Lierde A, De Rycke A, Verstrate W.
Processing of biowaste by anaerobic composting to plant growth substrates.
Water Science and Technology 1993;27(2):109e19.